Well, I heard on the radio that the State government (VIC) is trying to ban ecstasy(sp?) testing kits. They claim that the kits are encouraging drug use, but in hello's opinion they are actually a positive thing, in that they are trying to minimise the harm associated with taking tabs.
I'm of the opinion that if you do drugs it's your choice, and that the government should recognise that they will never be able to completely abolish drug use, thus, the only thing they can do is minimise the harmful effects.

What's your opinion?

yeah - I don't understand how it can be a bad thing to know if what you are putting in your body is rat poision and will kill you or e and will make you feel good.

I have no problems with drugs at all, just so long as you are responsible about it.

That's a pretty un-educated thing to say.

Laws are in place to protect you and others. Drugs not only affect your senses but other things like judgment, feelings etc and if these things are affected you may intentionally/un-intentionally harm someone other than yourself.

In other words, do you think if police let all people drink as much as they wanted before driving that there would be no deaths of inocents on our roads?

And i'm sure the government know they can never completly abolish something but they have to try don't they?

Try thinking a bit more before you talk about a serious issue like this next time. Mkay?

There are hundreds of things that you can intentionally and un-intentionally harm somebody with. Cars are legal - yet they kill more people than drugs.

I take it you never drink alcohol or caffine then - with your attitude to drugs. Other drugs are really no different - if you take too much you will get sick - if you take a reasonable amount then you will probably be just as safe.

Like many things - society has been brain washed to some extent to believe that drugs are bad - but if you do some research, experiement a little and don't believe everything you are told - I'm confident you'll have a different opinion.

No.

What I said wasn't uneducated, nor was I not thinking when I wrote it - hello was just being a realist.

The government has to try to get rid of the drug problem, sure, but at the same time they can't disregard methods and practices that aim to reduce the harmful effects of drugs. Any idiot could see that the best way to reduce the harm of drugs if for an individual to not take 'em, but the world we live in isn't perfect...Anyways, I said in my post "completely", meaning that I know that there is a chance that some drug use can be decreased.

Also, society frowns upon recreational drugs, but "legal" drugs can do just as much harm.

Try reading somebody's post before going off on a preachy-preach rant. Mkay?

That's why there are limits and guidlines around these drugs. You said (beast) that it should be ok to use as much as you want (more or less), which is stupid and if people went around doing what they thought was "responsible" the world would be chaotic.

Drugs exist and the government can't just ignore that. Banning something like this that can help people use them safely is just stupid. It's like ignoring that there really is drug use. Personally, I don't care what people take, its none of my business. But if you know people are taking the drugs, which are going to be sold whether it is illegal or not, why would you ban somethign that could help save lives? You can bet your entire life savings that there won't be any ecstasy test kit dealers hanging out on street corners.

Eh? There's no limits around booze. If I wanted to, I could go down to my local and buy a couple of bottles of vodka and do a shit load more damage than taking a tab.

Like Beast said, get out from under your rock.

No rules you say?

• You can't legally buy alchohol from pubs if you "apear drunk.
• Theres a b/a limit you can drive at
• No drinking in the street
• No drinking below a certain age
• You can't operate machinery under the limit

The list really does go on, and not just for alchohol.

But that's just the thing. It is your business!

And another thing, hello, not all drugs are "drugs". Lots of drug makers take shortcuts to make bigger profits and in turn put more harmful/dangerous substances is drugs which in fact turns the drug into an entirely different drug and usually its no longer "safe" in "moderation".

Believe me mate, i'm not under any rock.

I think that is the point thathello is taking there Big Scib Man is in banning the testing kits it will endanger lives because drugs are made by bad people. I think all drugs should be legal so that the users are taken out of the hands of criminals and so that there use can be regulated as it is people are in the hands of people who have no feeling of responisbility to the people they sell to. The biggest risk of E is thats it not E after that it is dehydration which is rare thats why water costs so much at some places because they know poeple are doing E.

Says it all really.

I think its really dumb that when a marijuana plant is found it is burnt by the police, or burnt by the potheads smoking it, either way it ends up as smoke, and for what, because a bunch of hippies want to go smoke it. It is a species same as every other plant on this planet, and well it doesn't really deserve to be hacked down simply because of what it is.

I say we remove the warnings and instructions from drugs and let the problem solve itself.

try telling that to the innocent people who have been robbed/killed/abused/ect ect by people they have nothing to do with that are obsessed with drugs

dont mean to pick on you almight bean, just thought id make a point, kinda :blink:



as for the actual question, it is a double edged sword. I do see where the both sides are comin from.....but, having said that

i think taking it off the market would have more pre-emptive positives than the re-active benefits.....

We should rid the world of cigarettes before we rid the world of all of this other shit.

yeah thats true coconut....but then you gotta think of all the jobs cigarette companies suppuly to families, then the kick back the govenerment gets.....i hate cigarettes to no end...but it is an industry that does support millions of people......phasing it out like they are doing is the best solution

I'm of the simple opinion that all drugs that are illegal are illegal for a reason. While people say it's "their choice" and "doesn't do any harm", that's rubbish. Drugs are a truckload more powerful than back in the 60s, and are, in fact, very harmful. When under the influence of drugs, you're senses and level of alertness are effected, therefore potentially harming others.

Point is, They need to come down hard on drugs. I don't care about opinions such as "the more you try to supress it, the more people will go to it", these things need to be crushed.

Drugs are bad, m'kay? :P

Have you not considered the idea that drugs are illegal so the government can make a lot of money by running the underground/black market that sell them illegally on the street? A stupid theory...or is it?

How is it my business? Sure, some drug addicts have robbed people. Some non-drug addicts have robbed people too. If someone wants to take the hard drugs and risk their life, that is their business. Banning a kit that will help casual drug users avoid death isn't the right way to fight drugs in society.

:blink: As quartz_donkey said, that's the exact same point I was making! I agree with you, there is so much shit out there, and thus these drug-testing kits aim to ensure that people know what they're taking.

Exactly.

To return to your original argument, Big Scib Man, of drunken driving. Drunk driving is illegal, for obvious reasons, but many pubs have breath-testers - so, why doesn't the government ban 'em? Because they are trying to reduce the harm of an illegal act. These testing kits may stop people taking harmful drugs, just as if somebody blows a .O6 they'll take a taxi home. The problem of drunk driving will never go away, but the government does it best to monitor it, via booze buses and breath-testing, and an indepth ad campaign - why don't they do the same for rec., drug taking?

Booze does not have limits - in that, I could go down to the shop right now and drink myself to death.

Well, I've got 2 friends who do "recreational" drugs on a semi-regular basis. They have never been involved in harmful behaviour - because they are very, very careful. I'm not trying to make out that drug taking is OK, in every given situation, but if carefully monitored it is not as bad as the media and the government would lead you to believe. Anyways, the short term and long term effects of "recreational" drug taking have never been fully researched.

First point of note is that Marijuana is less addictive and (debatably) less harmful than caffiene and niccotine. The benifits of legalising Marijuana are not to be understated - (a) The black market will be driven out of business, (2) it will allow medical use of the drug (for post chemotherapy and certain eye surgeries), (3) The plant can be harvested as a strong fibre, and (4) It's very relaxing and can be theraputic (sp?). Unfortunately preventing the legalisation is the extremely conservative and the lack of 'concrete' evidence proving Marijuana's harmlessness (though there is plenty of speculative evidence to suggest that Marijuana is virtually harmless - if not, then less so than caffiene and niccotine).

Oh yeah, the kit should be legal too. Goes without saying.

As for the 'hard stuff' I'm pretty much in favour of making it as inaccessible as possible. I'm not politically correct enough to agree that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want to themselves. LSD, Speed, and Crack deteriorate the lifestyles of most people who take them, and really, stupid people should be protected from their own stupidity (and they should not be allowed to breed, either).

Yeah.

I obviously don't think people should be allowed to take as many drugs as they like. They should be allowed to take a reasonable amount if they like. People should be protected from hurting themselves.

"Hard drugs" vary in how "hard" they are and their effects on the body.

I tend to call drugs like speed and e - party drugs - because that's where they are taken. I don't think they are "hard" drugs at all.

sorry for the double post - I also think that people have warped perceptions of how many people who take drugs are harmed by it. I know a large number of people who take drugs of one sort or another and only one of them has had any problems from that (and he had a lot of emotional problems to begin with and the drug in question was weed)

For the love of god! Will you stop referring yourself in the third person.

Your not Bob y'know!

hello, I was never arguing with you about the stupididity ( :D ) of getting rid of the kits. I never even mentioned them.

Unfortunetly, your right. Theres nothing anyone can do about that for various reasons.

I think Syt is spot on with his post. Although, Mary Jane does have some effects. As a person who know's people who smoke it heavily, I have witnessed how lazy (physically and in the mind) it can make people. It also often makes them paranoid. However, these effects are (usually) harmless and this is from heavy smoking.

My dad works with mental patients, many of which are there because of crippling drug habits. Everything from junkies through to long-term pot users are committed on account of their brains being completely drug-fucked. Think Ozzy Osbourne.
My stance on drugs is fairly liberal. I guess people will continue to use them no matter how hard the government tries to stop them, so I figure the best we can do is to educate people about them so there's less chance people will take drugs out of curiosity.
Finally, if there was one drug I think should be eliminated before any other (if it could be done, that is) it would be alcohol.

1) I've already said a couple of times that it's a habit I've got into, which I'm trying to tone down a bit.
2) Anyways, who the hell's Bob? And, more importantly, who the hell are you?

:lol: What were we arguing about, then? I'm lost...

Yeah, that's the funny thing about the whole drug debate: there's not that much concrete evidence to support the anti-marijuana/party drug campaign. For all we know, having a bong each day will make you live 'til your 133.

I'm with Junker. I just don't see how/why alcohol has become social acceptable, yet having a smoke is frowned upon.

Well, he did drop acid every day for a year, just to see what would happen. I think we now know.

Well this isn't the main or only reason, but people like to have a drink when they're eating, but not have cigarette smoke permeating their food.

While drinking can be viewed as only affecting the person (provided they don't drink too much and do something stupid), cigarette smoke bothers everyone around them, especially non-smokers who are in the area.

argh, drugs, what can I say? It doesn't really matter cuz someone will disagree with me and be completely unwilling to change their mind. Anyway, don't start drugs and you should be fine, that simple really.

I think the harmless effects of marijuana are also to do with the abundance of chemicals that many dealers put into their product, and thought that was worth mentioning.

errrr.. tabs? ecstacy comes in pill form mainly... tabs are acid/LSD.

In 20 yars time our mental hospitals are going to be full of people with E related brain damage... Most other drugs have been around for a while, and as such we have some concrete evidence on the effects of long term use... Ecstacy is a completely different matter.. It is relatively new, and there are people popping them like there is no tomorrow. society will pay the price.

As far as I am concerned, drug consumption and the subsequent effects are completely individual. Some people should never touch weed... some can smoke it for a lifetime and have no troubles..

On the decriminalisation front.. I think marijuana should be decriminalised, and people should be allowed to grow in soil (not hydroponics) in their back yard if they choose. This would serve to minimise crime and prevent drug dealers from taking otherwise taxable money. Added to this, the quality of marijuana would decrease substantially (as there would be little hydro) and thus their would be less likelihood of negative effects...

abundance of chemicals 'ey? like what?

I know Nitrosol is used as an accelerant during the growth process.. I think you'll find that people dealing dont touch the shit.. why would they waste their money on chemicals when they are trying to make a profit of selling the shit?

Chemicals which could be used to make it more addictive, I was referring to

sorry... but that is a load of shit.. I know people who grow it, I know people who sell it and I know people who use it regularly. there are no chemicals added to try and make it more addictive.. the simple fact is that is is addictive enough on its own..

This is why beer shouldn't be servered to idiots....

Right click save as 4 MB PS give it a bit I was still uploading it while I was doing this and it was only half way done.

If a mod thinks this is to gross then delete it.. I dont mind. :)

Don't you worry about me. I know who I am. Do you know who you are?!

And I fail to see how its an important issue who I am when discussing how you refer to yourself in the third person.

:blink: :blink: :blink:

Man thats nuts! What a freaking moron.

Hahahaha, awww that is rotten. :lol:

That's just gross :blink: